"W-what's the problem then? I'm voting for Obama!"
Posted on 02/27/2008 12:26:34 PM PST by neverdem
Barack Obama's Second Amendment is all about hunting and target shooting.
Under the Second Amendment, Barack Obama says, "There is an individual right to bear arms, but it is subject to common-sense regulation, just like most of our rights are subject to common-sense regulation." The leading candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination thus seems to be on the same wavelength as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which in a decision last March said "the protections of the Second Amendment are subject to the same sort of reasonable restrictions that have been recognized as limiting, for instance, the First Amendment."
But there is a crucial difference between these superficially similar formulations: The appeals court meant what it said, and Obama doesn't. Although the Illinois senator has learned to pay lip service to the Second Amendment, the details of his past and present positions on gun control suggest he neither understands nor respects the right to keep and bear arms.
In last year's ruling, which the U.S. Supreme Court will soon review, the D.C. Circuit overturned a Washington, D.C., gun law that bans possession of handguns in the home and requires that rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock." The law thereby effectively bars city residents from using firearms for self-defense in their own homes.
Obama evidently considers that de facto prohibition a "common-sense regulation," since he recently cited Washington's law as an example of constitutionally permissible gun control. "The notion that somehow local jurisdictions can't initiate gun safety laws to deal with gangbangers and random shootings on the street isn't borne out by our Constitution," he said.
The D.C. gun law, passed in 1975, isn't really about gangbangers, which it has not exactly disarmed, or random shootings on the street, which it has not noticeably curbed. In effect if not intent, it is about disarming law-abiding residents who might want to protect themselves from gangbangers and other violent criminals.
It's not surprising that Obama sees nothing unconstitutional about this situation, since he does not acknowledge that the Second Amendment has anything to do with self-defense. "As a former constitutional law professor, Barack Obama understands and believes in the constitutional right of Americans to bear arms," his website claims. "He will protect the rights of hunters and other law-abiding Americans to purchase, own, transport, and use guns for the purposes of hunting and target shooting" (emphasis added).
This is the only substantive discussion of the Second Amendment on Obama's website. It's part of a document that lists "Protecting Gun Rights" as a subcategory of "Supporting the Rights and Traditions of Sportsmen," which is like listing "Protecting Freedom of Speech" as a subcategory of "Supporting the Rights and Traditions of Auctioneers."
It's true that hunting—at the time an important source of sustenance, as opposed to the hobby it has become for most Americans—was one of the gun uses the Framers had in mind when they guaranteed the right to arms. But as the D.C. Circuit emphasized when it found Washington's gun law unconstitutional, "the people's right to arms was auxiliary to the natural right of self-preservation," which was "understood as the right to defend oneself against attacks by lawless individuals, or, if absolutely necessary, to resist and throw off a tyrannical government."
Because Obama ignores these aspects of the Second Amendment, he sees no constitutional barrier to a complete ban on the manufacture, sale, and possession of handguns, which he supported when he ran for the Illinois Senate in 1996. Two years later he said he favored a ban on the sale or transfer of all semiautomatic firearms, which would cover not only most handguns but many hunting rifles and shotguns as well.
Responding to criticism that Obama has since changed his position on gun control, his campaign declares that "Obama has been consistent." If so, consistent civil libertarians—the ones who do not mentally skip from the First Amendment to the Fourth—should be worried.
© Copyright 2008 by Creators Syndicate Inc.
We need a grand slam SCOTUS decision in Heller this summer, otherwise this country will go the way of Australia and Britain and possession of guns will be past tense.
This is a very dangerous man.
He’ll start by taking away your guns, then follow behind by implementing liberal social programs that will clearly demonstrate your urgent need for them.
Glad I am taking my concealed carry course this weekend, despite the fact it may only have a 12 month shelf life if this clown has his way.
Common Sense is in the eye of the beholder. O’Bama has no Common Sense. But he offers hope for change and change for hope and change for change and hope for hope of change that hope changes.
Over mine and half the country’s dead bodies. That said this as_hat is dangerous and his cult following just doesn’t get it. He has no message other than “change”. This is how socialist are empowered.
I agree, let’s wait until after the primaries for this.
This country will go the way of revolt before we go the way of Australia and Britain.
I don’t know about you, but I would consider someone trying to do me or my property harm as a “target”
“This country will go the way of revolt before we go the way of Australia and Britain.”
Here, here...
How about the taxman -
“he” does your property harm all the time.
"W-what's the problem then? I'm voting for Obama!"
I’ll second that. I’m already preparing.
the correct answer by Mike Huckabee:
Our Founding Fathers, having endured the tyranny of the British Empire, wanted to guarantee our God-given liberties. They devised our three branches of government and our system of checks and balances. But they were still concerned that the system could fail, and that we might someday face a new tyranny from our own government. They wanted us to be able to defend ourselves, and that’s why they gave us the Second Amendment. They knew that a government facing an armed populace was less likely to take away our rights, while a disarmed population wouldn’t have much hope. As Ronald Reagan reminded us, “Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction.” Without our Second Amendment rights, all of our other rights aren’t inalienable, they’re just “on loan” from the government.
Will they fight for those rights? Well, given that only 5% of gunowners belong to any type of gun-rights organization (NRA, GOA, state orgs), I highly doubt it. There are true believers out there, but they also have a lot to lose and the numbers wouldn't be enough to be labeled anything other than a "small gang of armed criminals" by the media. They certainly wouldn't be called "freedom fighters" or "patriots."
Not to someone who believes government intervention is the answer to every situation you may face in life.
Barack Obama's words
No. Mitt Romney's
When we run candidates that are no different from those of the other party, don't be surrpised when voters decide to just go ahead and go for the real thing & vote Dem.
*(in Massachusetts)
>>Isn’t Self-Defense Common Sense? - Barack Obama’s Second Amendment is all about hunting<<
Self defense is just common sense. The Supreme court is good at finding non-enumerated rights - it would seem the could see that implied in all the other rights is the right self defense - it is THE fundamental human right - all the others depend on it.
At least I am a well armed criminal.
Hunting is not a constitutional right. Taking game is regulated and it is agreed by all that it requires a lot of regulation. You must purchase a license to hunt. Rights do not require a license.
This needs to be pointed out every time that the dims start assuring hunters that they support the right to have a gun to hunt. The 2A is not about hunting. It is about self-protection from others and the government.
mcCain on the DC gun ban
In my years in Washington, I have seen what I will call three myths used by politicians to excuse their support for gun control. First, is the big city myth: that it is acceptable — even necessary — to fight crime in big cities. If you have a crime problem, they say it’s really a gun problem. So instead of increasing police patrols, instituting tough sentences for lawbreakers and other measures that would actually address crime, we restrict ownership of guns and limit the rights of law abiding citizens.
We are meeting today in a city that represents the worst of this myth. The citizens of the nation’s capital do not enjoy the right to keep and bear arms. That is why I have co-sponsored legislation repealing the ban on firearms possession for law abiding citizens in the District of Colombia. The Second Amendment is not just for rural Arizona, it is for all of America.
The second myth is that of the “bad gun.” This was at the core of the debate over so-called “assault weapons.” Proponents of this myth argue that some kinds of guns are acceptable — for now — but others are not if they have certain features — like a pistol grip or an extended magazine. I will continue to oppose those who want to ration the Second Amendment based on their views of what guns it applies to.
Finally, there is the hunting myth — if you show your bona fides by hunting ducks or varmints or quail, it makes up for support for gun control. This myth overlooks a fundamental truth: the Second Amendment is not about hunting, it is about freedom.
When seconds count, the Police are just miniutes away.
that’s what the “new” conservatives don’t get. “Guns? oh those are for those hicks who eat squirrels. We care about business and oh he’s so articulate and charming.”
If there is a revolution, it will be from a confluence of things that push us over the edge. It won’t be just from loss of gun rights. Look how many gun rights have been lost gradually over the years. As long as the gun grabbers do it gradually, (think boiling frog), we all just complain a little and move on. Most gun owners are not gun-rights advocates and couldn’t care less that you think your AR15 is just as important as their $3,000 double barreled shotgun. If everyone was like gun owners at Free Republic or AR15.com, this wouldn’t even be a topic of conversation. If even 1/2 of gunowners belonged to the NRA or the like, this wouldn’t be a topic of conversation. Unfortunately, 90% of gunowners think the NRA is a bunch of right wing militia extremists (if that were only true).
Ask Hussein what weapons his bodyguards have access to? This weasel is all about power over the little people with rules that apply to all but himself.
that he doesn’t have a problem with. however the constitution protects the right to bear arms, not the right to enjoy pot.
Obama wants to be nice with our enemies and antagonize our friends. He has messed up priorities.
JOHN R. LOTT: Columbine To Va. Tech To NIU: Gun-Free Zones Or Killing Fields?
Few know that Dylan Klebold, one of the two Columbine killers, was closely following Colorado legislation that would have let citizens carry a concealed handgun. Klebold strongly opposed the legislation and openly talked about it.
No wonder, as the bill being debated would have allowed permitted guns to be carried on school property. It is quite a coincidence that he attacked Columbine High School the very day the legislature was scheduled to vote on the bill.
Why DC's Gun Law Is Unconstitutional
Do you have a legal right to own a gun?
Second Amendment Special BANG!
If Obama is as smart as he seems, he’ll leave the 2nd ALONE.
If not, he’ll be the second president to start a civil war.
well...the NOI bodyguards are unarmed
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9800E3D9123AF930A35750C0A962958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all
“The notion that somehow local jurisdictions can’t initiate gun safety laws to deal with gangbangers and random shootings on the street isn’t borne out by our Constitution,” he said.
oh yea, gangbangers and thugs will be the first ones to turn in their guns because they’re against the law.../s
Agreed. Especially since he taught "Constitutional Law" for years at the University of Chicago. He knows what the framers meant, but his Marxist beliefs trump that.
Exactly correct. Exc. point.
You hit the nail on the head.
We pro 2A voters don’t seem quite as welcome this time around.
Add to that that voters in general are not so stupid as to think that articulate & nice hair translates to good public policy & you have what we have now.
naww better yet have him call a hippie to help him out.
Dude, he doesn't think like that. He's going to CHANGE AMERICA, and CHANGE THE WORLD!
The Constitution does not grant the government the power to have anything to do with regulating or banning pot. When the nation decided to ban alcohol, an amendment to the Constitution was necessary. That amendment was later repealed. There has never been an amendment granting to the government the power to regulate any kind of drugs.
We haven’t done NEARLY enough of that to keep us a free Country.
BTW: I heard he said he would rid the world of fissile material also.
I have long felt that the First Amendment is subordinate to common sense control of the newspapers and TV.
many states did ban it before the amendment. The point of the 18th amendment was not to overcome some constitutional problem but to achieve a strategic as well as symbolic goal for the prohibition movement.
I wonder if he thinks the press should be subject to common sense regulation; or religion.
ML/NJ
So....I’m assuming he’s for “Common-sense regulation” of abortion, right?
Don't kid yourself. Look up The war on guns and The war on drugs & guns, IIRC, when the search function is working normally again. An archive search is bombing on me. The obscene profits from the war on drugs is causing a big blowback, i.e. a great deal of the impetus for the war on guns, the militarization of police forces, no knock raids on the wrong addresses, killing innocent home owners, police confiscations without due process, etc.
This war on drugs is doing wonders for turning us into a police state. But no sweat, it's for the children, who might be getting state mandated drugs that disqualify them from joining the Armed Forces.
Standard operating procedure:
- Agree with your opponent
- Present as perfectly normal the rhetoric which is completely contrary with your opponent’s view
- Wear an expression which indicates there is absolutely no disagreement
- Move on to the next rhetorical point while your opponent ties himself in knots trying to draw attention back to what now looks like pointlessly nit-picking details, which nobody else wants to hear about at this point.
Very effective.
"Common sense is not so common." --Voltaire, French author, humanist, rationalist, & satirist (1694 - 1778)
Book mark for later reading.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.